Who's Staring (At Rupert Sheldrake) ?

[Kerberos]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who's Staring (At Rupert Sheldrake) ?

Well that seems to me to be ok yes. But Wiseman and Smith got a positive result when doing it this way. Wiseman (being a skeptic) thought the positive result must have been an artifact of the fact that there were not an equal number of looking and non-looking tests!

So that is why Sheldrake didn't do it that way. But then it is not properly random! I feel what CSICOP said about this was fair enough. But blame Wiseman and Smith! As I say Sheldrake can't win.

Nothing will ever satisfy skeptics. This is the problem. They will always dream up some excuse, no matter how implausible and far-fetched, or even whether it is a valid excuse at all!

The problem is that I’ve only heard Sheldrake's version of the events. However if what he claims is actually true why doesn't he apply for the million dollar prize? His claim is easily testable, doesn’t really on anecdotical evidence and should be repeatable.

 

[Interesting Ian]

But even if I can tell psychically when someone is staring at me, pattern learning should still occur.

There is no patterns anymore than when guessing each colour card from a randomly shuffled deck of cards. But if the initial 5 cards are all black, then there would be slightly more probability that the next card would be red.

If I don't feel that I'm being stared at, then I'll say I'm not. Both types of trials should improve.

But they don't. And I disagree that people will equally feel when they're not being stared at as they feel when they are being stared at. Does anyone ever get the feeling "you know I could swear no-one is looking at me!" LOL

Anyway, since both staring and non-staring trials do not improve, but only the staring trials do, this suggests that the positive results are not due to the structured randomness.

The same is true in the telephone telepathy experiments. The callees did much better when their familiars called than when someone else called. Regardless of how they were telling who called, why didn't they do better with unfamiliars?

Because the effectiveness of ESP is tied up with emotion and empathy? Why is that not possible?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who's Staring (At Rupert Sheldrake) ?

The problem is that I’ve only heard Sheldrake's version of the events. However if what he claims is actually true why doesn't he apply for the million dollar prize? His claim is easily testable, doesn’t really on anecdotical evidence and should be repeatable.

You've read CSICOP's version as well haven't you? I think that people prefer to have a proper scientific investigation of anomalous phenomena. Properly conducted parapsychological research is more likely to do this than testing by Randi.

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who's Staring (At Rupert Sheldrake) ?

You've read CSICOP's version as well haven't you? I think that people prefer to have a proper scientific investigation of anomalous phenomena. Properly conducted parapsychological research is more likely to do this than testing by Randi.

Oops I overlooked the CSICOP's version, having read that it does seem to indicate that the sequences weren't random and thus not useful. Sheldrake says he was earlier criticized for using truly random data but I still have only his word for that and no details.

As for Randi's tests I think that he uses professional scientistsm and in any case I certainly wouldn't say no to a million dollars just because I didn't think the results would have any proper scientific value.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:

But they don't. And I disagree that people will equally feel when they're not being stared at as they feel when they are being stared at. Does anyone ever get the feeling "you know I could swear no-one is looking at me!"

I agree they won't get any "feeling" when they're not being stared at. So why, then, don't they say they aren't being stared at? Since there are only two choices, they should do just as well when not being stared at. They don't seem to pick up on the pattern "feeling -> stared at; no feeling -> not stared at." The same goes for telephone telepathy. And the same goes regardless of whether they are psychic or picking up on some subtle mundane clues.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian said:
I agree they won't get any "feeling" when they're not being stared at. So why, then, don't they say they aren't being stared at? Since there are only two choices, they should do just as well when not being stared at.

I disagree. I contend that in this instance it will be more difficult to detect a negative (someone not looking) than a positive (someone looking). And all the evidence backs me up on this.

 

[TLN]

I disagree. I contend that in this instance it will be more difficult to detect a negative (someone not looking) than a positive (someone looking). And all the evidence backs me up on this.

What?!

What evidence?

 

[Interesting Ian]

What?!

What evidence?

I've supplied it above with the closed circuit television experiments. I repeat:

Actually the best experiments are those using closed-circuit television. This is a sophisticated experimental procedure using CCTV, with the subjects and lookers in separate rooms. The subjects were not asked to guess whether or not they were being looked at. Instead they could relax while their galvanic skin response was recorded automatically, as in lie detector tests.

Most of these experiments have been successful, with statistically significant positive results.
Braud, Shafer and Andrews (1990, 1993a, 1993b); Schlitz and LaBerge (1994, 1997); Delanoy (2001); Schlitz and Braud (1997). For reviews see Delanoy (2001); Schmidt, Schneider, Utts and Walach (2002).

 

[TLN]

...as in lie detector tests.

Which are useless...

 

[BNiles]

Which are useless...

I agree...even when they show a galvanic response there’s no way of knowing what caused it. Cold chills happen all the time, but mostly as a result of some macabre thought; but not necessarily from a stare.

A better test would be to simply let the person say when they thought they were being stared at only. This would easily score for positive and negative hits (they’re either right or wrong). And if they were being stared at and they didn’t respond, it would score as negative. In both cases, the correct answer is withheld until the test is complete.

 

[JamesM]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who's Staring (At Rupert Sheldrake) ?

Kerberos suggested:

How about just randomizing an equal number of looking and non-looking tests and not tell the subject if his guesses are correct until the test is over. In that way the subject would have no way to figure out the result.

You could also just flip a coin or use a similar, but more scientific randomization procedure to determine if you should look or not.

to which Ian replied

Well that seems to me to be ok yes. But Wiseman and Smith got a positive result when doing it this way.

Ian, can you clear something up for me? Kerberos suggests two different randomisation schemes, which one is it you think is ok and that Wiseman and Smith used? Is the Wiseman and Smith test you're talking about the same as the one discussed in the SI article? The authors say that this was a replication of the work of Braud et al, which used a setup "similar" to that of Williams, except using SSR. However, the Williams work did not, according to the article, control for randomisation.

From your comments, it seems that the Wiseman and Smith results did not use proper randomisation, which the SI article criticises due to the possibility of "a matching in bias between experimental and response sequence". Are there any studies that used both randomisation and no feedback?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
...as in lie detector tests.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Which are useless...[/B]

Indeed! I would certainly feel inclined to agree with you. Human beings responses are not as predictable as an electron's.

But do you truly not understand this is totally irrelevant? You're an intelligent guy so I have to suspect you're being awkward purely for the sake of it. Am I wrong?

 

[Interesting Ian]

I agree...even when they show a galvanic response there’s no way of knowing what caused it. Cold chills happen all the time, but mostly as a result of some macabre thought; but not necessarily from a stare.

It seems you genuinely don't understand. Ah well

A better test would be to simply let the person say when they thought they were being stared at only. This would easily score for positive and negative hits (they’re either right or wrong). And if they were being stared at and they didn’t respond, it would score as negative. In both cases, the correct answer is withheld until the test is complete. [/B]

Of course this experimental protocol has been carried out also. But tell me why they are not allowed immediate feedback as to whether they have the correct answer? How does that allow them to predict the next trial? Why doesn't CCTV eliminate any possible sensory leakage?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who's Staring (At Rupert Sheldrake) ?

Kerberos suggested:

to which Ian replied

Ian, can you clear something up for me? Kerberos suggests two different randomisation schemes, which one is it you think is ok and that Wiseman and Smith used? Is the Wiseman and Smith test you're talking about the same as the one discussed in the SI article? The authors say that this was a replication of the work of Braud et al, which used a setup "similar" to that of Williams, except using SSR. However, the Williams work did not, according to the article, control for randomisation.

From your comments, it seems that the Wiseman and Smith results did not use proper randomisation, which the SI article criticises due to the possibility of "a matching in bias between experimental and response sequence". Are there any studies that used both randomisation and no feedback?

Wiseman and Smith did not use proper randomisation?? Not according to my understanding of what Sheldrake says. That was my understanding of what Sheldrake said. But I only have Sheldrakes word for it. How do you get the impression from what I said that they didn't use proper (unstructured) randomisation?? I certainly never said that.

I repeat yet again from what Sheldrake said! http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Staring/followup_full.html

{Quote}

Marks and Colwell then postulated that the subjects' success when they were given feedback was due to an implicit learning of structures hidden in my randomized sequences. They showed by means of several tests that my sequences deviated from "structureless" randomness. Ironically, this was because I adopted a recommendation by Wiseman and Smith (1994) to use counterbalanced sequences containing equal numbers of looking and not-looking trials. Like Marks and Colwell, Wiseman and Smith (1994) obtained an unexpectedly positive result in a staring experiment and then tried to explain it as an artifact of the randomization procedure, but in their case they attributed it to a lack of counterbalancing.

{/Quote}

So a lack of counterbalancing meaning there was not equal numbers of staring and not staring trials. That's what I understand by his statements. Is my understanding incorrect?

If it is correct I think that counterbalancing is not the ideal experimental protocol. I submit however that I know absolutely nothing about this subject!

I'm reading the CSICOP article now. I'd just like to say why on earth do they have to drone on and on and on about complete irrelevancies before they get to the nitty gritty?? It infuriates me!

OK first paragraph of CSICOP article wholly irrelevant.

Second paragraph states:

{Quote}

Apart from their reluctance to change paradigms, it has been shown elsewhere (Marks and Kammann 1980; Marks 2000) what can happen when research on the paranormal is left purely to a few of the professionals. They can mess up badly.

{/Quote}

They can do? Does that mean they typically do or what?? If so in what way do they mess up?? Details please.

Rest of second paragraphy wholly irrelevant.

Third paragraph adumbrates Sheldrakes theory behind staring effect. Wholly irrelvant since they are denying there is such an effect. (and for what's it's woth I'm not particularly enthralled by Sheldrakes attempts at scientific explanations of this alleged phenomenom).

Fourth paragraph continues to drone on about Sheldrakes speculations on scientific theories behind this alleged phenomena. For the same reasons, it is totally irrelevant.

Fifth paragraph also wholly irrelevant. Drones on about possible causes behind peoples feelings they are being stared at.

OK, taking a quick break at this juncture. Get a tad tired of scrolling down hoping to see anything of any remote relevance.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I'm missing something here.
If there are two possibilities-
1. I am being stared at.
and
2.I am not being stared at.

-and some individuals can tell when (1.) applies, then they must be able to tell when (1.) does not apply, which is logically equivalent to saying that (2.) applies.

Surely there should be symmetry in the ability to tell, assuming that the individuals actually CAN tell when (1.) applies.

If they can NOT tell when (1.) applies, then we should expect some assymetry in response. Which is what we see.

So what am I missing?

 

[Interesting Ian]

6th paragraph wholly irrelevant.

After this it states:

{quote}
There are two basic methods that Sheldrake's revolutionary experimenters are expected to use:


Pairs of schoolchildren divide into starers and starees with the starer sitting at least one meter behind the staree. Using random number sequences and a method for signalling trials such as a "clicker," the starer signals the start of each of a sequence of twenty trials. The staree wears airline blindfolds, and responses are recorded on data sheets by the starer. After a block of twenty trials, the two children change roles.

Starers and starees are isolated with starers inside and starees outside of the school building.

Early results reported in the British newspaper The Sunday Telegraph (Matthews 1997) obtained from 18,000 trials with schoolchildren suggest that non-staring trials produce chance guessing by the starees, whereas staring trials produce a 60 percent accuracy rate, a statistically significant result.

{/quote}

Ah, just one sentence later it's starting to get to the nitty gritty!

It's now describing the experimental protocol. Feedback gives positive results but non-feedback doesn't.

Now talks about structured randomisation protocol possibly giving biased results. It states

{quote}
starees may have been able to learn the sequence structure from the feedback.
{/quote}

This implies there is a pattern which there isn't. It's kinda like predicting the colour of the next card in a deck of cards by the proceding number of black and red cards. At best what they say is deeply misleading as they are no patterns to be discerned.

It then talks about the defects of counterbalancing. I have no particular problems with what they say although whether it is sufficient to account for the positive results I have no idea. I cetainly do not have the knowledge to criticize. Nevertheless I agree that one should emply structureless randomness. But tell that to the skeptics Wiseman et al.

Ok, now to experiment 2. I shall continue this in another post.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I'm missing something here.
If there are two possibilities-
1. I am being stared at.
and
2.I am not being stared at.

-and some individuals can tell when (1.) applies, then they must be able to tell when (1.) does not apply, which is logically equivalent to saying that (2.) applies.

Surely there should be symmetry in the ability to tell, assuming that the individuals actually CAN tell when (1.) applies.

If they can NOT tell when (1.) applies, then we should expect some assymetry in response. Which is what we see.

So what am I missing?

Are you being absolutely serious?? You honestly are saying that it necessarily must be the case that people can detect non-staring as readily as staring!?? I sure as hell am certain that I wouldn't be able to do so!

You know what makes this much much worse is that here we get skeptics saying that psi definitely does not exist, but even if it did exist, it must be of a certain character! This is despite what believers say on this issue.

If you don't understand you'll just have to take it from me that detecting a negative such as somewhat not looking, will be more difficult than detecting a positive ie someone is[ looking. If you still don't understand then I am genuinely stumped

{throws arms up in air}


BTW Yeah, I am drunk at the mo.

One last attempt.

People cannot tell when they are being stared at. They might have a vague feeling. If they do not have this vague feeling then this obviously doesn't imply they are not being stared at!

Sheesh!!

 

[Interesting Ian]

2nd Experiment

2nd Experiment


From CSICOP's account it seems very straight forward. There is no statistically significant result.

But hey! Guess what?? They've cheated! Well what do you know!

One crucial factor they left out. They changed the bloody starer!!

As Sheldrake points out:

{quote}
There is already experimental evidence that different starers can obtain very different results. In tests carried out through closed-circuit television, Richard Wiseman, a skeptic, obtained results at chance levels when he was the starer. In the same experiment, another starer, Marilyn Schlitz, obtained statistically significant positive results (Wiseman and Schlitz 1997), replicating her significant positive results in previous experiments of this kind (Schlitz and LaBerge 1994, 1997).

{/quote}

OK there is some more on the CSICOP page. But I'm a bit tired of reading this complete unadulterated ◊◊◊◊◊ for tonight. Might address the rest of the page tomorrow.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:

Are you being absolutely serious?? You honestly are saying that it necessarily must be the case that people can detect non-staring as readily as staring!?? I sure as hell am certain that I wouldn't be able to do so!

They aren't detecting that they aren't being stared at. But you'd think that, when they don't sense that they are being stared at, they would guess that they aren't.

Maybe what happens is this: When they don't sense they are being stared at, then they guess at random. After a few trials, they figure out that it isn't always the case that they aren't being stared at when they don't get the feeling, so they continue with the random guess strategy.

There is already experimental evidence that different starers can obtain very different results. In tests carried out through closed-circuit television, Richard Wiseman, a skeptic, obtained results at chance levels when he was the starer. In the same experiment, another starer, Marilyn Schlitz, obtained statistically significant positive results (Wiseman and Schlitz 1997), replicating her significant positive results in previous experiments of this kind (Schlitz and LaBerge 1994, 1997).

This is an interesting result. They should continue to do these experiments, making small changes to the protocol, and try to figure out what is going on. Unless, of course, they just want to assume that Wiseman's staring telepathy broadcast unit is busted because he's a skeptic.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Here is an exchange about a possible problem in the stare/no-stare sequences of the Wiseman and Schlitz experiments:

http://www.hf.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/hnctt/get/show212/7.html?nogifs

It seems to stop without reaching a conclusion. I'll see what I can dig up . . . sent an email to James Bonomo.

~~ Paul